StarDestroyer.Net BBS

no not me, I have no serious qualm with the current administration, but I noticed something.

Allot of you foriegners keep yapping about how evil the USA is ,and how the republicans were about to start shipping Muslims and arabs into some desert internment facility, suspend the bill of rights, abolish free speech, and turn america over to the control of corporate elites. Not to mention the endless ranting about Bush and Cheney's finances. for god's sake will you get over it? Despite making something innocuous look as horrible as possible, ther IS NO EVIDENCE that they did anything wrong. Whine all you want about bushes belated SEC filing, but if they thought something was fishy about stock activity, they would simply query the Stock exchanges Dbase and got the needed PUBLIC DATA to start an investigation. He just wanted to buy the Oilers, he needed the money, so he sold stock. It was in the newspapers. As for Cheney's sale, he had to do it according to law, the president and vice president must liquidate thier investments and put them into a blind trust, and they are forbidden to know how they are invested.

As for Bush not being a ligeitmate president, in the past 3 elections, no one has received 50% + 1 vote. I ddin't see all this moaning and bitching when it worked for clinton. And Its will never be known who really won most ofthe votes in the 2k elections, The margin by which gore allegedly beat bush by was far less than the margin of error for the election nationwide.

Know back to the interment of US citizens of arab descent. Look Joesph Padilia (or however you spell it) Yapped his freaking mouth off about how much he wants to kill americans and was going to detonate an iradiation bomb. You know what, I hope they lock that SOB in a prision with some KKK or a black panther and gets his ass rapped everyday. don't ever let the fucker out. Hell they yell pre-crime, yet when they just arrested a white doctor in florida for plotting to go shoot up some mosques, then a mysterous silence about precrime blows through the air.

Might I remiond you that only commie/racist adminsitrations like FDR interinned people because of thier race. Woodrow Wilison actually tried to suspend the constitution. Invariably it took a republican to get reperations for the unjustly imprisoned japanense, Ronald Raegan. Hmm lets see about FDR

1) Stacked the US Supreme Court (added 2 more justices 7->9, tried to force the others to retire)
2) interined people solely on race
3) subverted the market system to buy votes
4) FBI
5) established a ministry of vitrue, arrested and commited women who failed to abide by moral code (waitresses were a consdered whores and constatnly harrassed and subject to arrest without cause)
5) Used the IRS and FBI to terrorize opponents
6) let the japs bomb pearl harbour (though controversial, I feel its fit in quite nicely with taking us into war)

Lyndon johnson got us into Vietnam by fakeing an attack on a US warship sending 50k americans to thier deaths.

As you can see, the Democatic party has been the bastion for facist polices, not the Republicans.

You must have thought that Orsen Welles was talking about Republicans in "1984", but when he wrote it, he need only look at the FDR misadministration to find all the information about what a crazed lune toon could do whne given too much power. Its amazing with all the parallels between FDR's party and the party described in 1984.

To tell you the truth, I can't really tell we are at war, except when I go to an airport. Nothing has changed. there are just arresting people who want to mindlessly kill american civilians!!! Only an idiot would let them out.

Might I add, in this new War on terror, we are still freerer than even most places in europe, espeically france. In europe the protections citizens have can be stripped away with a simple majority vote by parliament, and an unelected international elite (the EC and ECJ) terrorize the people of europe with insane proclamations, an uncanny ability to wrtie thousands of crack inspired usless mindnumbing regulations.

Then the EU threaten to ban ban food imports in the future from any African Nation in the midst of famine that accepts emergency food assistance from the US. Do you have any clue how many 10;s of thousnads of Africans are going to die becasue of these proclamations? (Such as in Zambia) They would be able to buld a funeral pyre that could be seen from orbit with all the dead bodies.

As for the war on terror and all this crap about "destabilizing the region" would be soo bad. as in the software world, "thats not a bug, thats a feature". I would love to see in the news, that murderous thug, the Ayahtollah of Iran was burned at the stake by the same peoiple he has been oppressing all these years with the religous police.

so in short, America does not need the help of foriegners espeically from europe to tell us what to do. You had your chance and messed up the world. we are going to fix things for the better, make things in our image.

I point you here.http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard2.html

Make sure you read the entire scorecard by date.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I point you here.http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard2.html

Make sure you read the entire scorecard by date.

Read the whole thing, and you might make a better impression if you got a site that wasn’t so loaded with bullshit. Half the stuff listed, and a lot of the things they rate as very very evil or higher are some of the best decision Bush has ever made. Anyway, the whole thing has such a hopeless liberal slant its not worth consideration.

I don’t like Bush, but this thing is a load of crap.

Azeron wrote:
so in short, America does not need the help of foriegners espeically from europe to tell us what to do. You had your chance and messed up the world. we are going to fix things for the better, make things in our image.

And by trying to remake the world in your image {or in this case, Azerons wet dream of how he wants the world to be} you only make youeslef into what you just said you disliked, gimboid

From your point of view. From my point of view many of his actions are less than good.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Europe has some guns, but cant move then were there needed. The result is the US has no reason to listen to them; it will act in favor of its own interests because it putting its own citizens lives on the line to back them up.

America would have a lot more reason to listen to the world if it didn't have 92% of the world's strategic military transport with the UK owning another 5%.

Europe, though to a lesser extent then most the UK, have relied on the US for protection and spent proportionally less on defense. The end result is that nations like France and Germany need months to move brigades a few hundred miles into Eastern Europe, while the USA can have a Corps with a heavy division from the States to anywhere in the world in under two weeks.

This thread is flamebait.

Know back to the interment of US citizens of arab descent. Look Joesph Padilia (or however you spell it) Yapped his freaking mouth off about how much he wants to kill americans and was going to detonate an iradiation bomb. You know what, I hope they lock that SOB in a prision with some KKK or a black panther and gets his ass rapped everyday. don't ever let the fucker out. Hell they yell pre-crime, yet when they just arrested a white doctor in florida for plotting to go shoot up some mosques, then a mysterous silence about precrime blows through the air.

The state dept admited that he was just a small fry who only talked about making a bomb. Ashcroft only annonced his capture to make Bush look like he is doing something in this War on Terror.
That doctor would probably gone and shot up those mosques becasue it was within his abilities. Padilla had no way to make a dirty bomb. He just talked about blowing some shit up so they busted him.

Might I remiond you that only commie/racist adminsitrations like FDR interinned people because of thier race. Woodrow Wilison actually tried to suspend the constitution. Invariably it took a republican to get reperations for the unjustly imprisoned japanense, Ronald Raegan. Hmm lets see about FDR

1) Stacked the US Supreme Court (added 2 more justices 7->9, tried to force the others to retire)
2) interined people solely on race
3) subverted the market system to buy votes
4) FBI
5) established a ministry of vitrue, arrested and commited women who failed to abide by moral code (waitresses were a consdered whores and constatnly harrassed and subject to arrest without cause)
5) Used the IRS and FBI to terrorize opponents
6) let the japs bomb pearl harbour (though controversial, I feel its fit in quite nicely with taking us into war)

When Wilson tried to do that the US was at WAR, a honest to bob congress declared war.
When he stacked the court he did it to get his new deal legislation through. It was all he had to get the US out of the Depression. How would you have solved that problem.
The Internment was wrong, but people are stupid especially when they are afraid. As was the case on the West Coast.
The FBI has always wanted an authoritarian state, even today.
Where did this ministry of virtue shit FDR created come from.

Where is the evidence that FDR let the japs bomb pearl. That's just some conspiracy theory. AND IF he did why not. Just let the japs conquer all of asia, have a bigger fleet. If we had stayed out of the war they would have been on our doorsteps, and would have been an even bigger threat. WW2 helped the US out of the depression and made us into the superpower we are today.


Everything else you wrote is flame bait euro trashing crap.

5-8-2001


CNN
Bush tries to build more nuclear power plants. Everyone knows the dangers of nuclear power. The radioactive waste poisons the environment wherever it's stored, and accidents can render huge swaths of land uninhabitable for years. Since the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the United States. Now the Bush administration wants to include nuclear plants among the 1,300 to 1,900 power plants it wants to build over the next 20 years, ushering in a new era of unfettered pollution and profits for the energy industry.

Wow, I consider myself a Liberal but this is just silly. They have some good points in the document, but the author lets his or her radical politics taint the effect of the information.

10-21-2001


Washington Post

Rank: 5 Evils

Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

Who exactly runs this site anyway? The more I read it, the more bizarre, inaccurate, or just plain stupid entries I find.

Geez, no wonder all the right wingers think Liberals are whack jobs.

EDIT: I should note that there's still huge heaping piles of Bad Things on here too. Again, if the site was written in a more objective and less... um... stupid way, it might have some real impact.

Darik Sdair wrote:

5-8-2001


CNN
Bush tries to build more nuclear power plants. Everyone knows the dangers of nuclear power. The radioactive waste poisons the environment wherever it's stored, and accidents can render huge swaths of land uninhabitable for years. Since the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the United States. Now the Bush administration wants to include nuclear plants among the 1,300 to 1,900 power plants it wants to build over the next 20 years, ushering in a new era of unfettered pollution and profits for the energy industry.

Wow, I consider myself a Liberal but this is just silly. They have some good points in the document, but the author lets his or her radical politics taint the effect of the information.

If anything Three Mile Island proves how safe American nuclear plants and there containment systems are. The concrete pressure vessels has about ten feet of radioactivity water in it, yet has not leaked a drop in 23 years. The surrounding land is safe enough to live and grow food on, and the water around the plant does has only a tiny increase in background radiation which couldn't harm you even if you drank 20 gallons a day for a decade.

But such things are always ignored. Just like that fact that another Chernobyl is physically impossible for a Western reactor because of the pressure vessel.

Sea Skimmer wrote:


If anything Three Mile Island proves how safe American nuclear plants and there containment systems are. The concrete pressure vessels has about ten feet of radioactivity water in it, yet has not leaked a drop in 23 years. The surrounding land is safe enough to live and grow food on, and the water around the plant does has only a tiny increase in background radiation which couldn't harm you even if you drank 20 gallons a day for a decade.

But such things are always ignored. Just like that fact that another Chernobyl is physically impossible for a Western reactor because of the pressure vessel.

And we always forget how amazingly horrible the USSRS safety record is and how they had little reagrd for human life or the enviorment.

Mr. B wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:


If anything Three Mile Island proves how safe American nuclear plants and there containment systems are. The concrete pressure vessels has about ten feet of radioactivity water in it, yet has not leaked a drop in 23 years. The surrounding land is safe enough to live and grow food on, and the water around the plant does has only a tiny increase in background radiation which couldn't harm you even if you drank 20 gallons a day for a decade.

But such things are always ignored. Just like that fact that another Chernobyl is physically impossible for a Western reactor because of the pressure vessel.

And we always forget how amazingly horrible the USSRS safety record is and how they had little reagrd for human life or the enviorment.

Who forgets that? I sure dont. At Chelyabinsk in Russia you can get a lethal dose of radiation in one hour standing on the shores of one of the lakes. Russia fifteen or so know nuclear disasters where the result of inept training and the worlds worst designs.

High quality well designed reactors served by well trained personal like those f the USN have proven them selves to be quite save. The USN has never had a nuclear accident, neither has the Royal Navy or French Navy. The USSR/Russia hasn’t had an accident in any of their late 70s and newer subs, which is when they really made the shift to quality.

The fact that one nation was reckless should not hold the world back, though I'm not sure if that’s what your saying.

The people who forget are those who see no difference between Chernobyl and Three Mile ISland.

Allot of you foriegners keep yapping about how evil the USA is ,and how the republicans were about to start shipping Muslims and arabs into some desert internment facility, suspend the bill of rights, abolish free speech, and turn america over to the control of corporate elites.

Understand It, Outside America no one cares if they are republicans or Democratics. Its all the same.
And no one cares if the "democracy" of USA works or not, we care for all the thing that affect us.
Its not if some big dude stolen, cheat or anything. Its how this cause a crisis of confidence elsewhere because USA cannt control their own capital and this capital have been allowed to be here also.
Its about the Secretary of Finances coming to tv to declare about Brazil not being safe to make deals, in the same weak that Brazil brought a million fee from the International Found to control the crisis and with that, destroy all this work. He was so wrong, that he had to public say "sorry" to be allowed to come here.
Its when Mr. Bush come with pearls like "Or are with me or against me" when he come with his war of terror...The king of Gaffes.
Or when USA made preasure to have allowed his product everywhere and complains about such deals and he is the first to over taxes products, like the ace , evne when by those deals countries like Brazil have used millions to build a industrial park to deal with USA, just to see the trust broken with overtaxes...
Or when cow meat from Brazil is banned for a false accusation of being tainted by European Mad Cow disease, like if brazil ever needed to buy cow meat from europe and that the Mad Cow disease happens because the food is given to the cow (usually bones, a re use) and in brazil more than 90 % of cows are created freely, which only allow to eat natural food (grass) and we have no industry of production of such food supplements neither importation of this.
That is what everyone cares about. We want to see when they will get tired of arabs and look somewhere else with their Police, because in the Evil Axis they put a lot of people, but forget about the terror they cause everywhere.If it is Bush, Clinton, Gore, does not matter. One is a smiling patpat boss and other a severe passional one.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Europe has some guns, but cant move then were there needed. The result is the US has no reason to listen to them; it will act in favor of its own interests because it putting its own citizens lives on the line to back them up.

America would have a lot more reason to listen to the world if it didn't have 92% of the world's strategic military transport with the UK owning another 5%.

Europe, though to a lesser extent then most the UK, have relied on the US for protection and spent proportionally less on defense. The end result is that nations like France and Germany need months to move brigades a few hundred miles into Eastern Europe, while the USA can have a Corps with a heavy division from the States to anywhere in the world in under two weeks.

Well, if you decide that US national interest is the only factor that counts someone here in Europe might realize sooner or later that closing an eye or two in front of terroristic activities in exchange for not being targeted by Osama & Co saitisfies national interests more than pursuing terrorism,thus risking to become a target, for a nation that cares only of itself.
Maybe you will discover that heavy artillery and transport aircrafts are not all that useful in a war against terrorists who maybe live in the same street where do you live...

Admiral Piett wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Europe has some guns, but cant move then were there needed. The result is the US has no reason to listen to them; it will act in favor of its own interests because it putting its own citizens lives on the line to back them up.

America would have a lot more reason to listen to the world if it didn't have 92% of the world's strategic military transport with the UK owning another 5%.

Europe, though to a lesser extent then most the UK, have relied on the US for protection and spent proportionally less on defense. The end result is that nations like France and Germany need months to move brigades a few hundred miles into Eastern Europe, while the USA can have a Corps with a heavy division from the States to anywhere in the world in under two weeks.

Well, if you decide that US national interest is the only factor that counts someone here in Europe might realize sooner or later that closing an eye or two in front of terroristic activities in exchange for not being targeted by Osama & Co saitisfies national interests more than pursuing terrorism,thus risking to become a target, for a nation that cares only of itself.
Maybe you will discover that heavy artillery and transport aircrafts are not all that useful in a war against terrorists who maybe live in the same street where do you live...

All nations care only for them selves.They have interests and act to protect them. Currently Europe cant act to protect its own intrests around the world, but still attempts to dictate how America should act in an attempt to make up for that huge military shortfall.

And rifles work just fine aginst terrorists down the street.

By Azeron

Might I add, in this new War on terror, we are still freerer than even most places in europe, espeically france. In europe the protections citizens have can be stripped away with a simple majority vote by parliament, and an unelected international elite (the EC and ECJ) terrorize the people of europe with insane proclamations, an uncanny ability to wrtie thousands of crack inspired usless mindnumbing regulations.

Poor France! They get whipped at every possible moment on this board!

I've always wondered about the rights that refugees and immigrant workers have in EU countries. It would seem that they are second class citizens. Does anyone have info on this issue?

Federal regulations require the addition of an "oxygenate" to gasoline to make it burn more cleanly. California recently phased out a common oxygenate, MTBE, because it was polluting the water supply. Another option is ethanol, but California Governor Gray Davis asks for an exemption to the oxygenate rule because refiners have developed other ways to make the gasoline cleaner. Adding oxygenates to the gas increases the cost of gasoline, and Davis is obviously sensitive to energy prices. Bush refuses Davis's request, showing that the 2004 campaign is already in full swing. Support for ethanol is crucial for presidential candidates in Iowa, where the corn-based fuel additive is important to the local economy.

Hmm Davis is "sensitive" to energy issues? Thats an understatement. I guess all the enegery problems in cali are bushes fault, since there are allot of oil people in texas (Notice how proximity implies guilt). don't worry, the way things are going in cali, energy is going to be priced out of hte hands of the average consumer soon enough. That will reduce polution, once people stop being able to afford to power things like a tv. I have seen energy prices in Cali, and I can only say one thing about that -- Gross mismanagement is the cause of calis problems. We need a constitutional amendment so we can strip states like Cali that have thrwon fiscal and managerial responsibility to thed wind of thier right to self government, and establish a iterim management to make the state capable of running itself it again. I am sureprised Davis hasn;t been impeached for his willingness to sell out the state to his friends and colleuges , so they can make a fast buck.

When Republicans were in control of Congress, the president could state unequivocally that he supported a patients' bill of rights. After all, he's a Reformer with Results. But now that the Democrats run the Senate, a bill with real reform might end up on his desk. Such a bill might allow, for example, someone whose spouse died because an HMO refused medical treatment to collect a judgement of more than $500,000. Calling such real reform "a trial lawyers' bill," White House chief of staff Andy Card indicates that Bush will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Hey, that couldn't have anything to do with all those campaign contributions from the insurance industry, could it?

Do they even understand how an HMO works? Do they know how many people could receive trreatment with 500k? Sure it sounds nice, give someone a huge lump sum for something that was wrongly decided. till you figure in the costs to everyone else in the system. It means more restrictive polices with say heart transplants. Where someone before might have been able to get a transplant at a 40% chance of survival, now they will need a 60 - 80% chance to survive. Not to mention it might make insurance simply unaffordable for the poorest people who need it the most. As for Catastrophic coverage, forget it, who is going to run the risk unless the HMO's were charging a pretty penny for it.

There are no freee rides in this world. To give to one person, means to take from another.

Congress hasn't authorized it. The international community repudiates it. That doesn't stop our president from pursuing a missile defense system, which by its nature trashes important international treaties. The new goal is to get at least part of the system operational by 2004, since there's a good chance Bush won't be the president after then.

Hmmm, russia doesn't seem to mind, as a matter of fact we are both contributing to developement to make the system work for bot h the US and Russia. Whats the big deal? the 2 signatores to the dam trreaty both aggreed that its not needed anymore. But I think people don;t understand the difference between a strategic missle and a tactical nuke. what makes a nuke strategic, depends on where it lands. if it lands on russia or the US mainland, its considered strategic. Everywhere else tactical. So if we are say flying a Predator drone, and we see that Ossama has aquired a Pakistani surface to surface intermediate range missle from the recent topploling of government of pakistan, the drone would not be able to fire on the missle aimed for russia, because the missle is strategic. The ABM treaty frobids such action. We wouldn't be allowed to even send in ground troops to take it out, or the area over. Thats how freaking stupid the treaty was, and why russia was even more desperate to get out of it than us.

Bush continues to claim that the market will solve California's energy woes. He doesn't seem to realize that the "market" was what allowed energy producers to raise their prices so high. (No, let's not underestimate the president. He may very well know, but he sure as hell doesn't care.) Wholesale prices are 10 times what they were last year despite no proportionate drop in supply, and the energy companies are raking in unprecedented profits. Despite please from California governor Gray Davis, Bush refuses to consider price caps, as that would lower good buddy and Enron CEO Kenneth Lay's Christmas bonus. Davis says California will sue, since it's clear the energy suppliers are breaking the law to gouge consumers.

More BS about cali. Daivs has noone else to blame for his problems but him. HE sold out cali to make sure his investment portfolio grew. I can't think of one reason how someone could so grossly mismanage a state like he has unless he was taking money under the table. I look at everything that he did, and it went somethign like this, "If I was a mind blowing moron, I would sign long term contracts when the spot market was at its highest", "If I liked to have sex with goats, I would bail out Con Edison, than actaully fix the underlying problems with the idiotic degregulation scheme","If Marv Albert is the guy I reeally want to be, I would try and blame Enron for....umm....well it was an evil company that went bankrupt becasue it provided goods and services at too low a price than it could afford, and that hurt californians"

It's not the fundraising; it's the hypocrisy. Republicans, including Bush, continually and vocally criticized Clinton and Gore for hosting coffees with Democratic donors at the White House. Now Dick Cheney invites hundreds of the GOP's biggest donors to the official vice presidential residence. What's the difference? Republicans aren't just hypocritical for defending the fundraiser. ("I'm sure it's being done in an appropriate way," says Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, "or Dick Cheney wouldn't be doing it." Uh huh.) They're stupid. How difficult was it to predict the bad press the Bush administration would get for inviting donors to the Naval Observatory residence?

I think there is a difference. There is no prid pro quo with bush. Clintonm published a list which included a night in the lincoln bedroom for 100k, 15k for a helicopeter ride on Marine 1, 10k for a coffee with the president...and so on and so on. Looking at teh people bush have had to the whitehouse look like idealogically like minded people, who in fact do give lots of money to the GOP. But you are not going to find a crack dealer or a chinese spy amoung them like you saw for clinton.

After a laughable nod to conservation--asking federal buildings in California to cut power consumption by 10 percent, which would save 0.1 percent of power used in the state--Bush makes it clear that conservation is not a serious part his energy policy. Asked whether the president will encourage Americans to conserve, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer replies, "that's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life."

Yah I got your number, I see tons of your kind around where I Live. "Bush won;t force americans to conserve" and then proceed to drive around in a gas guzzleing SUV. My Stepfather happens to be one of these people. Hey look people want to drive big safe cars, have a huge TV set, really just drain resources from mother earth in obscene quanitites. It should be the goal of the administration to satiate growing demand for energy, not try and artificially contract it or limit its growth. Thats a qualioty of life issue for people, you have no right interfering with the will of the people to live as they chose to live. Thats called "the pursuit of Happiness". A fundemental American Beleif.

National forests exist to protect natural beauty, which becomes more rare every day. Sometimes forests need protection against local whims, since the resources within them can provide a boost to the local economy. But now President Bush has decided to remove federal protections and leave the decisions for road building in national forests to the very people who endanger the forests in the first place. Timber interests, who--oh look!--gave a bunch of money to Bush's campaign, support the roads.

IN some western states, the feds own up to 84% of the state. Can you imagine the feds owning 83% of NY? I wonder how much waste was generated whne they used recycled paper (dirty little secret, recyclying causes more waste than just making more paper because of all the chemcals involed. If recycling really was so cheap, they wouldn't need to add a tax to get you to do it. Compaines would take it from you for free)

Bush delays Clinton administration rules that would have lowered the maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water. The standard has remained unchanged since 1942. Who benefits from the higher levels? The mining companies and other industrial interests that would have to pay more to avoid polluting the water supply. These interests donated generously to Bush's campaign. Anyone surprised?

Now this was insane. Polluted water? never mind that you would need to drink a bathtub full of this stuff a day for 50 years to get any harmful effects, but who cares if it means cutting off water for people for moths at atime even when ther is no danger.

The U.S. Court of Appeals sent back Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's sentence in the Microsoft case for review because it felt the judge had been too biased in his decision, not surprising considering his ill-advised anti-Microsoft remarks to the media. But it did not ask the court to review his verdict, agreeing with Jackson that Microsoft was clearly guilty of antitrust violations. Now Attorney General John Ashcroft decides not to pursue any significant punishments for the software giant, meaning Microsoft will suffer no consequences for what the trial judge and appeals court agree are serious crimes. You just have to love these get-tough-on-crime conservatives!

It amazes me how one who is so concerned with the poor et al, that you berate the bill gates who ha donated over 15 billion to help people all over the world, about half his personal fortune, and made no secret that he wants to give the other half away.

Face facts, this is just Compaines trying to use the political proccess to attack thier competitor becasue they can;t compete in the marketplace. Since when does a court have the right to decide if Windows XP has a web browser, or can play mp3's? You are a nutt job.

What's so immoral about assassinations? After all, people die in military engagements all the time, so why should, say, slipping a political leader a dose of heart-stopping poison be any worse than shooting a soldier? Well, the soldier is shooting back. War is fraught with moral ambiguities, but there are rules to military engagements. (Those rules are broken all too often, with such incidents explained euphemistically as "collateral damage.") You're not supposed to shoot someone who doesn't pose immediate danger to you or others. Assassination is a specific violation of those rules, and thus inherently immoral. Before September 11, America was quickly losing stature on the world stage after sabotaging treaties covering subjects ranging from carbon dioxide emissions to biological warfare. Bush's order to the CIA to use any means to take out Osama bin Laden is likely to chip away at the stature we've regained since we were attacked by terrorists. Besides, it's just wrong.

You think its immoral to kill Bin Laden? I think its pretty evident that you hate america, and this chirade about being concerned for people is about crippling teh industrial capacity of the US and turn it into an impoverished 3rd world nation, where we can live in peace and harmony out in the cold with the animals. Your words are the words of a traitor.

During his State of the Union address, Bush lists Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as a new "axis of evil" that his administration will confront. It's a remarkably short-sighted foreign policy move that makes it clear our president has no interest in promoting peace. His choice of phrase inflames those countries (not to mention most of the rest of the world), ensuring that we will enjoy hostile relations with them for years to come. And all of his picks came at especially inopportune moments. Iran has moved toward a moderate government in elections over the past few years, and the United States was delicately pursuing improved relations with the country before Bush made his clumsy remarks. Bush already ham-handedly squandered an opportunity left to him by the Clinton administration to improve relations with North Korea (see 3-9-2001 below), but further eroding those relations only makes a bad situation worse. Iraq--well, it's just disturbing to see Paul Wolfowitz winning arguments in this administration. These are three bad countries whose problems need our attention. But Bush's strategy of describing countries as "evil" makes serious diplomatic efforts virtually impossible. It sure does line the pockets of defense contractors, though.

I think we don't see eye to eye on what the word evil means. If Bush tries to expand enegery resources thats a major evil by you, but you don't seem to think that treating an evil mass murderer like Kim il Sung like the prime minister of england is evil, but in fact good. You are frasking STUPID BEYOND BELIEF!!!!!!

If I murdered your sister, and everyone knew it, do you think it would be pretty fucked up if people treated me as if I had never harmed a single living soul? of ourse you would, but when the people being murdered are being murdered by a despot behind a military junta, its okay "there only asians"

Expanding public health care coverage to poor pregnant women is a good thing. Using that expansion to obscure an attack on abortion rights is despicable. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announces that the administration will allow states to designate fetuses as children eligible for funds under the Child Health Insurance Program so women will be able to get prenatal care under the program. But why not simply expand the program to cover pregnant women? Because by choosing to designate fetuses as "children," the Bush administration can appease the right-wing religious nuts who feel it hasn't done enough to fight abortion.

what you are against prenatal care? The law aplies to children, not pregnant woman. The law would have to be repealed or changed to include pregnant women. This was a quick way to give coverage to women who wanted to bring children to term. You think the Supreme Court is going to overrturn Roe Vs Wade over an Adminstration reClassification decision?
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Aren;t you suppose to be pro child/woman?

It's starting to look a lot like the 1980s again. Tax breaks for the rich, cuts to social services, market deregulation, and now, U.S.-backed coups of democratically elected Latin American leaders. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is popular with the people who elected him, especially the poor. But the wealthiest members of Venezuelan society don't appreciate his policies, so they decide a military coup is just the thing. And since Bush understands the needs of wealthy right-wingers, his administration supports the coup instead of condemning it. Even when it fails two days later, Bush still fails to condemn it. After all, it's not the votes that count, right?

You have never met a murdering bastard you didn't like have you? You rail bush for try to kill bin laden, but when President Chavez employs Bolvarian Circles (paramilitary thugs) to massacre his opponents, you think its wonderful. Venezulians are being brutually oppressed by Chaez, being shot, murdered, having thier livelyhoods taken away, disappearing in the middle of the night, and its okay. Yah this is the kind of democracy you want for the US.

Does America have the moral right to strike first, without provocation or any immediate threat? It takes a particularly thoughtless person to answer that question in the affirmative, and our president is just that kind of man. Bush isn't shy about using his September 11-inspired popularity for naked power grabs, and that includes military power. Bush says he'll bomb a country first if he feels it's in America's best interests. Just wait until his approval ratings drop under 50 percent to see this policy put into place.

Alright so we have to let a bunch of murdering psychopaths who WILL attack america strike the first blow. Now on the playground in school, if someone raised a fist to hit you, you were a sucker if you let them land the first blow. Only a fool would let someone hit them first whern they saw it coming. T here is no honor in letting someone bust your nose up. There is no honor in letting terrorist nations cdetonate a nuke in the middle of one of our cities. Like I said you are on the other side.

I can't read any more of this garbage.

Actaully as American Citizens being critical of the Government is not just a constituiional right.

The Supreame Court outlawed the Alien and Sedition Act., The first Emendmant is safe, and should be so.

Actually, as part of the Voting provess it's something that we have an obligation to do. Least tyrrany slip in whilst we were napping.

actually that does seem to begetting more and more likely, I see less and less faces every First Tuesday in Novemeber each time.....

George Orwell wrote "1984"

Who, just who IS Orson Wells?

opps, another writer. One of my things is that I am terrible with names. Similar names associatd with similar thoughts gets mixed up in my head.

Sorry for the faux pas.

Sea Skimmer wrote: All nations care only for them selves.They have interests and act to protect them. Currently Europe cant act to protect its own intrests around the world, but still attempts to dictate how America should act in an attempt to make up for that huge military shortfall.

And rifles work just fine aginst terrorists down the street.

I disagree. Europe is a very powerful region indeed when it plays to it's strengths. Consider trade and economics, Sea Skimmer. The EU contains a collection of the greatest manufacturers and exporters in the world. The US depends on vital imports from the EU for critical industries. Indeed amongst the top ten exports from Europe to the US you will find essential hardware for the nuclear industry, heavy industrial engines and so forth.

To see world politics as being entirely based on how many sharp sticks you have is to blind yourself to just how much damage EU nations could do if they wished, and vice-versa. The EU has colossal power, Sea Skimmer. Though in wartime and chasing suspected terrorists through deserts it may not be so red hot, it holds the US by the economic scrotum every bit as much as the reverse is true.

Check out complaints and issues filed to the World Trade Organisation since 2000 and their originators to see a glimpse of how Europe conducts it's affairs with the US. Whilst you are at it, check out such minor skirmishes as the 'wheat wars' of the 80s and the current tariffs and counter-tariffs running over the Atlantic.

And wonder to yourself just how much damage would be done to the US's fragile economy if a true trade war was ever initiated.

I don't know why everyone's bothering. This thread is obviously just another one of Azeron's flamebaiting attempts. Think about it; he stands up onstage, says "USA RULEZ!!! Everyone else SUCKS!!!" and then ... well, that's all he ever has to say about anything. Don't let yourself be baited by this guy.

*Sigh.*

A simple fellow must find his amusement where he can.

Darth Wong wrote:I don't know why everyone's bothering. This thread is obviously just another one of Azeron's flamebaiting attempts. Think about it; he stands up onstage, says "USA RULEZ!!! Everyone else SUCKS!!!" and then ... well, that's all he ever has to say about anything. Don't let yourself be baited by this guy.

I know, I know..But..cant..resist.,.must.. insult ..trolll